(ii) the disaster is ongoing 2 years later, with continuing radiation leaks, and that 160 000 people remain displaced from their homes with inadequate compensation to resettle,

(iii) decommissioning is expected to take over 40 years at a cost of A$100 billion, and

(iv) approximately 2 000 samples of food and game tested for radiation between April 2012 and January 2013 exceeded the limit for human consumption of radioactive isotopes; and

(b) calls on the Australian Government to undertake an immediate review of all bilateral uranium supply arrangements to assess the risk of future disasters at nuclear power stations in countries to which Australia supplies uranium.

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, which means that it has been rejected. The motion was:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) that a crackdown by over 6 000 police on non-violent anti-nuclear power protestors, including arrests for sedition and the prohibition on people congregating, occurred at the construction site of a nuclear reactor near the fishing village of Koodankulam in south India on 19 March and 20 March 2012,

(ii) that 20 000 people gathered on 20 March 2012 with thousands on an indefinite hunger strike until the non-violent protestors are released,

(iii) a growing mass movement in India opposed to nuclear power includes protests in Jaitapur, Maharashtra and Gorakhpur, Haryana,

(v) the 1998 United National Security Council resolution 1172 'encourages all States to prevent the export of equipment, materials or technology that could in any way assist programmes in India or Pakistan for nuclear weapons or for ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons, and welcomes national policies adopted and declared in this respect', and

(i) protest the Indian Government's unprecedented deployment of police around Koodankulam and the harassment of peaceful protestors as inconsistent with the democratic right to peaceful protest,

(ii) caution the Indian Government against loading uranium fuel rods into the reactor at Koodankulam without conducting any safety or evacuation drills, mandatory exercises under the Indian Atomic Energy Regulatory Board rules,

(iii) promote the independence of nuclear regulators from industry and government as best international practice, and

(iv) not sell uranium to countries that stand outside the NPT and its associated safeguards system.

(i) Australians are 2:1 against uranium exports to countries with nuclear weapons,

(ii) 40 per cent of Australians are against the export of Australian uranium to any country for use in nuclear power plants for electricity generation,

(iii) a majority of Australians in every state are opposed to uranium exports to countries with nuclear weapons or against any uranium exports at all, and

(iv) results show 48 per cent of women are against uranium exports to any country, and a total of 73 per cent of women are against uranium exports to countries with nuclear weapons that have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; and

(b) calls on the Government to take this strong indication of public opinion into account as it makes a decision on the clear recommendations provided by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Australia-Russia uranium agreement signed by former Prime Minister Howard and the then President Putin in 2007.(You can read the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' report here.)

(ii) the United States of America (US) and India have agreed to the terms of a deal to exempt India from US laws and international rules that seek to prevent states that are not parties to the NPT from using commercial imports of nuclear technology and fuel to aid their nuclear weapons ambitions,

(iii) under the India-US nuclear deal two reactors dedicated to making plutonium for nuclear weapons and nine power reactors, including a plutonium breeder reactor that is under construction, will be outside international safeguards,

(iv) India needs to import uranium to relieve an acute fuel shortage for its existing nuclear reactors and that importing uranium will free up more of India’s domestic uranium for its military program,

(v) Pakistan has expressed its fears about the India-US nuclear deal, and

(vi) any sale of Australian uranium to India would contravene the NPT; and

(b) calls on the Government to reject any sale of Australian uranium to non-NPT states, including India.

(ii) the NSG was founded in 1975 in response to the Indian nuclear test of the previous year, a test which demonstrated that certain non-weapons specific nuclear technology could be readily used for weapons development, and

(iii) the NSG makes decisions by consensus, which means that each of the 45 NSG members, including Australia, must agree to the change of any rule, including those rules which prevent the export of uranium to non- Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty states such as India; and

(b) calls on the Government to use its position in the NSG to block the submission to exempt India from the NSG rules preventing the supply of uranium to states which have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

(ii) the United States of America (US) and India have agreed to the terms of a deal to exempt India from US laws and international rules that seek to prevent states that are not parties to the NPT from using commercial imports of nuclear technology and fuel to aid their nuclear weapons ambitions,

(iii) under the India-US nuclear deal two reactors dedicated to making plutonium for nuclear weapons and nine power reactors, including a plutonium breeder reactor that is under construction, will be outside international safeguards,

(iv) India needs to import uranium to relieve an acute fuel shortage for its existing nuclear reactors and that importing uranium will free up more of India’s domestic uranium for its military program,

(v) Pakistan has expressed its fears about the India-US nuclear deal, and

(vi) any sale of Australian uranium would contravene the NPT; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) reject any sale of Australian uranium to non-NPT states,

(ii) encourage India to join the NPT, and

(iii) use its position in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to block the submission to give India an exemption from the NSG rules preventing the supply of uranium to non-NPT states.

(iii) that Russia is in talks with the military regime in Myanmar with a view to supplying nuclear materials to that regime, and(Read more about the military regime in Myanmar on Wikipedia here.)

(iv) that, following attacks on freedom of the press and the murders of several journalists in Russia, the Committee to Protect Journalists rates Russia as the third most dangerous country in the world for journalists, after Iraq and Afghanistan; and

(iii) the US-India nuclear cooperation deal would breach the guidelines of the NSG that restricts trade with non-nuclear-weapon states that do not accept full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards,

(iv) exemptions from NSG guidelines would erode the credibility of the NSG’s effort to restrict nuclear trade to those states that meet global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament standards, and

(v) the next NSG meeting is in April 2007 and the US is expected to seek agreement to allow the US-India nuclear cooperation deal to proceed; and

(b) calls on the Government to preserve the integrity of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by blocking the US-India deal at the NSG meeting in April 2007 and ruling out the supply of uranium to India.

(i) decision by the advisory board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, on 17 January 2007, to move the hands of the ‘Doomsday Clock’ from 7 minutes to midnight to 5 minutes to midnight,

(ii) statement by the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency and Nobel Peace prize winner Mohammed El Baradei, on 9 January 2007, stressing that ‘In addition to non-proliferation, it is also important to make progress on the second leg of the NPT – namely, the commitment by the nuclear weapon States to proceed in good faith towards complete nuclear disarmament’,

(iii) statements published in the Wall Street Journal of 4 January 2007, by Henry A Kissinger, George P Schultz, William J Perry and Senator Sam Nunn, emphasising the urgency of agreed practical steps to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons, and

(iv) statements by Kofi Annan, on 28 November 2006, and the Rome Summit of Peace Nobels, on 19 November 2006, emphasising the urgency of eliminating nuclear weapons; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) review all existing uranium contracts with a view to ensuring that atoms of Australian uranium will never facilitate, in any way, nuclear weapons in any country,

(iii) make representations to the United States of America (US), urging it to place greater importance not only on non-proliferation and counter-proliferation efforts, but also on its Article VI NPT obligation to achieve the total elimination of its nuclear arsenal,

(v) continue its co-sponsorship of the resolution ‘Renewed determination towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons’, and support all other nuclear disarmament initiatives on the floor of the First Committee and General Assembly including the New Agenda resolution ‘Reducing Nuclear Danger’ and the annual Non-Aligned Movement resolution.

(ii) that International Atomic Energy Agency statistics reveal that there have been 300 seizures of smuggled radioactive material capable of making a ‘dirty’ bomb since 2002 and that the rate of seizures has doubled since this time,

(iii) the call from Al Qaeda’s chief in Iraq for nuclear scientists and explosives experts to join his Jihad against the West, and his comment that American bases in Iraq are good places to test unconventional weapons, and

(iv) that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has undermined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by expressing a willingness to consider the sale of uranium to India, which is not a signatory to the Treaty and which, together with Pakistan, staged the last nuclear break-out in 1998; and

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Christine Milne, which means that it was rejected. The motion was:

That the Senate-

(a) notes that:

(i) 27 September 2006 is the 50th anniversary of the first of the nuclear tests at Maralinga,

(ii) the nuclear tests resulted in fallout over most of Australia, and especially contaminated great tracts of traditional land, transforming an independent and physically-wide ranging people into a semi-static and dependent group, the damage being radiological, psycho-social and cultural,

(iv) the test site remains radioactive and that there are unresolved issues about compensation for the traditional owners,

(v) approximately 16 000 servicemen exposed to radiation during the tests never received recognition of hazardous service and survivors receive limited ongoing support, and the high mortality and illness rates of these men have not yet been adequately acknowledged or explained,

(vi) the Government breached its own standards for the disposal of long-lived radioactive waste disposal by burying plutonium-contaminated debris in shallow, unlined trenches,

(viii) the radioactive waste legacy will inevitably be a cost unfairly borne by future Australians; and

(b) calls on the Government to recommit to international nuclear non-proliferation, including ruling out the export of Australian uranium to countries that are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and ruling out the development of uranium enrichment plants in Australia.

The majority voted against a motion introduced by Greens Senator Christine Milne, which means that it was rejected. The motion was:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Chinese Ambassador to Australia, Madam Fu Ying, stated in December 2005 that China does not have sufficient uranium for both its weapons and civilian energy programs,

(ii) Australian yellowcake needs to go to conversion, enrichment and processing facilities before being allocated to declared civilian nuclear power stations,

(iii) most of the conversion, enrichment and processing facilities are not declared facilities and are therefore not covered by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, and

(iv) those facilities that are declared are only declared at the discretion of the Chinese Government, and therefore are voluntary and can at any time be removed from IAEA safeguards;

(b) recognises therefore that by exporting uranium to China, Australia will be supporting, either directly or indirectly, the Chinese nuclear weapons program in contravention of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; and

(ii) India has a well-developed, active and secret program to outfit its uranium enrichment program and circumvent other countries’ technology export control efforts, according to a recently-released report by the United States of America (US) based Institute of Science and International Security; and(You can see the report here (198 KB).)

(b) calls on the Australian Government to rule out the export of uranium to India and to use its membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group to block the proposed US-India nuclear technology agreement.

How
"voted strongly for"
is worked out

The MP's votes count towards a weighted average where the most important votes get
50 points,
less important votes get
10 points,
and less important votes for which the MP was absent get
2 points.
In important votes the MP gets awarded the full
50 points
for voting the same as the policy,
0 points
for voting against the policy, and
25 points
for not voting. In less important votes, the MP gets
10 points
for voting with the policy,
0 points
for voting against, and
1
(out of 2)
if absent.

Then, the number gets converted to a simple english language phrase based on the range of values it's within.

No of votes

Points

Out of

Most important votes (50 points)

MP voted with policy

0

0

0

MP voted against policy

0

0

0

MP absent

0

0

0

Less important votes (10 points)

MP voted with policy

9

90

90

MP voted against policy

0

0

0

Less important absentees (2 points)

MP absent*

8

8

16

Total:

98

106

*Pressure of other work means MPs or
Senators are not always available to vote – it does not always
indicate they have abstained. Therefore, being absent on a less
important vote makes a disproportionatly small
difference.